SoM, are you bald, so I can laugh at you and then have a bear come out of the woods to tear me to pieces.

Agrippina wrote:SoM, are you bald, so I can laugh at you and then have a bear come out of the woods to tear me to pieces.

Yes, but god only sends bears for small children. For adults he sends this guy:



"For god so loved his bald prophets, he sent his only radiation-begotten son, that those who make fun of his bald prophets shall be crushed beneath his big rubber feet." Toho 3:16

Fallible wrote:Paarsurrey does not understand, I believe, that one does not need to believe in God in order to comment that God is not great,

I believe that paarsurrey doesn't believe in atheism. I believe you have picked out the likelihood that paarsurrey has got into his head the belief that Hitchens believed (and, by extension, the rest of us believe) in polytheim - the True Bane of Islam. That Hitchens rated paarsurrey's god as 000 while rating many others 999.

@SaM
@ Oeditor: he's jealous about his god not getting the same non-rating.

Thanks for merging them Hugh.

The template for rating the posts of Paarsurrey

Post: 01: <starting word: How: ---------: ending word: Everything > rating: 0

Comments in brief: There is not an original thought of paarsurrey; it is just plagiarizing from cretinist websites and fuckwitted apologists, and it is not an established fact of Science even.
Questions or comments if any will be made on the other thread, titled <paarsurrey's posts 'Thought is not Great'

Agrippina wrote:Thanks for merging them Hugh.

I've also asked for the other thread on the book to be merged here. It's rather inconsiderate of paarsurrey to create unnecessary work for the mods by littering the board with duplicate threads, IMHO.

Shrunk wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Thanks for merging them Hugh.

I've also asked that for the other thread on the book to be merged here. It's rather inconsiderate of paarsurrey to create unnecessary work for the mods by littering the board with duplicate threads, IMHO.

To be fair, I think he thinks he's doing something different by starting a separate thread for the idiotic concept of rating sentences. I will now rate his idea:

I give it a 1. It would get a zero for being utterly pointless, but it does get a point for being so mind-numbingly stupid as to be hilarious.

Lol

Now I'll never find that piece I offered to him to talk about.

Christopher Hitchens has named the first chapter of his book as “Taking it Mildly”; and as expected of an atheist journalist; he has like a spider woven the weak strings of his arguments until he wrote:

“Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made.”10

By no means is the expression “Religion is man-made” any fact; but Hitchens’ wild intentions become obvious when he culminates towards the end of the chapter with the sentence:

“As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hardwon human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.”13

I think it is Hitchens poisoning minds of the atheists.

By putting fears into the minds of the readers, he blows the trumpet of war.

Yet I say; he is wrong; the world is in danger of war between the worldly people; religion is not involved in it. The first two wars were not for any religion; the third-world war will also not be any different.

Hitchens proves to be a warmonger.

I, therefore, rate the first chapter of his book on its merit as “0”.

I think everybody will agree

paarsurrey wrote:I think everybody will agree

You think wrong. Whilst I don't agree with everything Hitchens wrote, I also don't agree with your analysis in its entirety.

paarsurrey wrote:By no means is the syllable “Religion is man-made” any fact

It isn't? Do you think the Vatican is run by aliens?
Actually, that would explain a lot

Paarsurrey: how many different people are posting under this username?

I ask politely and would appreciate an honest answer.

paarsurrey wrote:Christopher Hitchens has named the first chapter of his book as “Taking it Mildly”; and as expected of an atheist journalist; he has like a spider woven the weak strings of his arguments until he wrote:

“Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made.”10

By no means is the syllable “Religion is man-made” any fact; but Hitchens’ wild intentions become obvious when he culminates towards the end of the chapter with the sentence:

“As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hardwon human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.”13

I think it is Hitchens poisoning minds of the atheists.

By putting fears into the minds of the readers, he blows the trumpet of war.

Yet I say; he is wrong; the world is in danger of war between the worldly people; religion is not involved in it. The first two wars were not for any religion; the third-world war will also not be any different.

Hitchens proves to be a warmonger.

I, therefore, rate the first chapter of his book on its merit as “0”.

I think everybody will agree

Of course. Because the most dangerous powerkeg of a situation currently in existence that could erupt into all-out war isn't based on a difference of religious ideologies.

Onyx8 wrote:Paarsurrey: how many different people are posting under this username?

I ask politely and would appreciate an honest answer.

I am just one person.

LucidFlight wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:By no means is the syllable “Religion is man-made” any fact;

I think that's six syllables, actually.

Thanks for pointing it out; I have changed the word syllable with the word expression. Is it OK? Sorry,English is not my mother tongue.

Moonwatcher wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Christopher Hitchens has named the first chapter of his book as “Taking it Mildly”; and as expected of an atheist journalist; he has like a spider woven the weak strings of his arguments until he wrote:

“Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made.”10

By no means is the syllable “Religion is man-made” any fact; but Hitchens’ wild intentions become obvious when he culminates towards the end of the chapter with the sentence:

“As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hardwon human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.”13

I think it is Hitchens poisoning minds of the atheists.

By putting fears into the minds of the readers, he blows the trumpet of war.

Yet I say; he is wrong; the world is in danger of war between the worldly people; religion is not involved in it. The first two wars were not for any religion; the third-world war will also not be any different.

Hitchens proves to be a warmonger.

I, therefore, rate the first chapter of his book on its merit as “0”.

I think everybody will agree

Of course. Because the most dangerous powerkeg of a situation currently in existence that could erupt into all-out war isn't based on a difference of religious ideologies.

I appreciate your comments.

Thanks and regards